calvinist wrote:Well this is where it gets really deep.... I do believe in pre-destination, not only in the limited sense of salvation but of everything.... I believe every speck of dust in the corner of my closet is exactly where God is intending it to be. Now, I know what you all are thinking.... but I don't believe this makes us robots or machines, or necessarily destroys "free will". We are slaves to our desires, and our deepest desires are really in a way what defines who we are and so we're slaves to.... ourselves. Sounds strange but we've all experienced the "contrary wills" within us. Now I believe we are all born in sin, which is to say that our hearts are self-centered and we want to glorify ourselves. We are in a sense magnets charged to be attracted to evil.... and so we sin... because we want to... but we can't not sin... because we will never want to not sin. there is nothing stopping us... other than our own wills. it's like if your favorite color is blue and then you decide you'll make it orange... you can just change it... your desires, your likes and dislikes, what could be called your will, must be changed..... you can't change your own will because it would be your will that would change it. So God changes the will and the person is "reborn" with a will that desires God above all else. In the end we are all still looking to please ourselves... but the Christian finds his greatest pleasure in God. i'll just say..... it's complicated

Ummm.... yeah. Really complicated. That's why I became an atheist way back when. It's less convoluted. Occam's Razor is one of Christianity's greatest enemies, if you ask me.

No. They are beings/things of the universe, but we imaginatively represent them in ways that differ from how we may find them beyond our representations, sometimes on purpose, or sometimes by accident, and always a bit from not being able artistically to represent anything perflectly.

Consider a weather man using a map with arrows to represent the winds. He is not referring to "nonexistant" winds, just because when we go outside we don't find the winds flying around as actual arrows.

The same answer is for Lex's point about the smurfs not referring to living beings. He needs to look again. The artistic representation is what is not the living beings, but the artistic representation represents living beings, but as I said earlier, <i>it represents living beings in an imaginative way</i>. Instead of representing living beings as closely as possible as we see them in every day life, "smurfs" represents them, on purpose, in a playful, imaginative, different way. It is not based on anything nonexistant. It is based on existant things, and then artistically representing those things in an imaginative way.<pre> </pre>

Kasper wrote:On a side note: I wonder whether the atheists on this forum would propose that there is no such thing as a spirit or soul, or for that matter a spiritual experience?

This is two separate questions. I see no reason to believe in the existence of souls as usually understood â€”Â a non-corporeal something that has memories, personality, etc., surviving the death of a person. There's not a single aspect of our personality that cannot be radically altered or erased by a konk on the head, a stroke or some other cranial mishap â€”Â memory, of course, but also compassion, language skills, conscientiousness, appreciation of music, liveliness. There's even a form of limbic system epilepsy that can, among other things, make its sufferers obsessed with religion (either pro or con).

I must confess that my brain often seizes up when confronted with the word "spiritual." It gets used in so many ways, some with meaning, some no more than a rhetorical flourish indicating the speaker's approval.

To me the existence of spiritual experiences would at least be indicative of the existence of 'something' beyond that which we can rationally proof, and something that could be associated with the existence of (a) 'divine' being(s).

So I can think of one thing that probably qualifies as an intentional spiritual exercise: mediation. If you grab a Buddhist monk and drop him in an fMRI machine to watch his brain on deep meditation, it is clear that the brain is not in a normal wake or sleep state. Among other things, the frontal lobe's behavior is modified in interesting ways. It's not surprising that a non-waking/non-sleeping brain state should be interpreted as a different sort of experience. So, too, does a temporal seizure induce inexplicable experience. I see no reason to posit work of the divine in this.

Kasper wrote:On a side note: I wonder whether the atheists on this forum would propose that there is no such thing as a spirit or soul, or for that matter a spiritual experience?

This is two separate questions. I see no reason to believe in the existence of souls as usually understood â€”Â a non-corporeal something that has memories, personality, etc., surviving the death of a person. ....

This is a related question. (Related to the above, less so to the topic of the thread.) Do you atheists view the Bible in a similar way as for instance, the Iliad? Interesting perhaps, good literature,....and made up by man to fulfill his "spiritual needs"?
(This is a honest question. No sarcasm intended, no ulterior motive.)

Essorant wrote:The same answer is for Lex's point about the smurfs not referring to living beings. He needs to look again. The artistic representation is what is not the living beings, but the artistic representation represents living beings, but as I said earlier, <i>it represents living beings in an imaginative way</i>.

The above is a lovely bowl of word salad. It sounds good in a poetic sort of way, but is not intellectually filling. Smurfs are imaginary little blue people. Imaginary, as in, they don't really exist.

Essorant wrote:Instead of representing living beings as closely as possible as we see them in every day life, "smurfs" represents them, on purpose, in a playful, imaginative, different way. It is not based on anything nonexistant.

Sure, smurfs are based on people, and people are real. But smurfs are also blue, tiny, and don't exist.

Essorant wrote:It is based on existant things, and then artistically representing those things in an imaginative way.

And a unicorn is based on a horse. Yeah, sure. So what? Unicorns still don't exist.

You are still mistaking me as referring to the manner of representation as being the living being. But I am not. I was not trying to say the imaginary representation called a "smurf" itself is a living being. But it does exist.

My point was actually exactly what you accepted: that smurfs are <i>based on</i> existant beings, not nonexistant beings.

This is what I am trying to say about god. The concept and representation of god, as well, is based an <i>existant</i> entity.

[Sorry for editing this message so much. I was trying to make it as clear as possible and still think I failed]

Last edited by Essorant on Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:35 am, edited 7 times in total.

Bert wrote:Do you atheists view the Bible in a similar way as for instance, the Iliad? Interesting perhaps, good literature,....and made up by man to fulfill his "spiritual needs"?

More or less, yes. I see the Bible as the main "text" (I hate using that word; it sounds so deconstructionist or something) for the mythos called "Christianity", and as one of the main cultural sources for the ... errrmmm, pre-post-modern Christian Western culture, just like the Iliad and Odyssey were major cultural sources for the Greeks. It's important to study if you want to understand Western civilization, but because it was influental, not because it's true.

Essorant wrote:I was not trying to say the imaginary representation called a "smurf" is a living being. But it does exist.

What I've been saying is that the concept of a smurf exists, but a smurf (implicitly meaning a real, existent smurf) doesn't. Isn't that the same as saying that a smurf exists, as a concept, but not as an existent entity? And isn't that what you are saying above? If not, I'm not sure my mental powers are fine enough to comprehend the distinction.

Essorant wrote:This is what I am trying to say about god. The concept and representation of god, as well, is based an <i>existant</i> entity.

What I've been saying is that the concept of a smurf exists, but a smurf (implicitly meaning a real, existent smurf) doesn't. Isn't that the same as saying that a smurf exists, as a concept, but not as an existent entity? And isn't that what you are saying above? If not, I'm not sure my mental powers are fine enough to comprehend the distinction.

I know, because you can't give up the notion that something must be nonexistant. You bear obstinant blind faith on it, as many others do. But nothing is nonexist. Nothing is missing from existance just because concepts and entities that they are based on often don't "match" each other.

There are only two things: the (existant) artwork (such as a smurf) and the entities that artwork is based on (such as living beings). Neither is nonexistant. That is the beginning and end. It is simple as that. It is time to let go of your blind faith in things being "nonexistant". Set your self free from that nonsense and face the existance of the whole universe. For nothing is missing just because there are great differences between art and what art is based on.

Ok, I'll bite. What existent entity is God based on?

That is the exactly the important question that I am wondering about. I don't know. All I was trying to do is get you and others to acknowledge that it the concept of god/gods is based on existant beings/things first so we could discuss this without the nonsense and blind faith of pretending things are "nonexistant".

What I've been saying is that the concept of a smurf exists, but a smurf (implicitly meaning a real, existent smurf) doesn't. Isn't that the same as saying that a smurf exists, as a concept, but not as an existent entity? And isn't that what you are saying above? If not, I'm not sure my mental powers are fine enough to comprehend the distinction.

I know, because you can't give up the notion that something must be nonexistant. You are blindly <i>insist</i> on it. But nothing is nonexist.

Yes, I suppose I do insist that some things are nonexistent, because that the common-sense viewpoint. I think that for your argument that nothing is really non-existent to be persuasive, you have to answer the question; How do you know this?

Essorant wrote:There are only two things: the (existant) artwork (such as a smurf) and the entities that artwork is based on (such as living beings). Neither is nonexistant. That is the beginning and end. It is simple as that.

I don't see it that way. I see also the existence of the concept of the smurf, which has no existing referrent; i.e. smurfs are non-existent. Your view seems to be, in a sense, against concepts.

Essorant wrote:It is time to let go of your blind faith in things being "nonexistant". Set your self free from that nonsense and face the existance of the whole universe. For nothing is missing just because there are great differences between art and what art is based on.

More word salad. I'm more a meat and potatoes man.

Essorant wrote:

Ok, I'll bite. What existent entity is God based on?

That is the exactly the important question that I am wondering about. I don't know. All I was trying to do is get you and others to acknowledge that it the concept of god/gods is based on existant beings/things first so we could discuss this without the nonsense and blind faith of pretending things are "nonexistant".

If you believe that God is based on an existent entity, but have no clue what that entity might be, then you are working on blind faith. I'm not working on blind faith, but on the common-sense use of language.

Yes, I suppose I do insist that some things are nonexistent, because that the common-sense viewpoint. I think that for your argument that nothing is really non-existent to be persuasive, you have to answer the question; How do you know this?

I know because we may refer to it. If there were nothing there to begin with then we would not have anything to refer to. The reason you can deny the existance is because it exists to begin with by which you are able to deny it. It is likewise for god and it is likewise for anything else you may deny exists under the heavens.

I don't see it that way. I see also the existence of the concept of the smurf, which has no existing referrent; i.e. smurfs are non-existent. Your view seems to be, in a sense, against concepts.

We already discussed its basis and referrent: that it represents living beings in an imaginative way through art (in this case "smurfs").

If you believe that God is based on an existent entity, but have no clue what that entity might be, then you are working on blind faith. I'm not working on blind faith, but on the common-sense use of language.

That is not true. My unknowledge is like an unknowledge of love. I know love exists too, but I have difficulty describing what it is based on, because it is somewhat manifold and confusing between judging it both between our concepts of love and what love is as an "entity". Therefore I don't know how love is for sure as distinct from our concepts and art, etc. In like wise, I don't know for sure exactly how god is as distinct from our concepts of god. All I know is that god exists, just as everything else in the universe does. <pre> </pre>

If I make up the concept of a higher-being called the Great Couch and raise it to divine status and give it great powers of comforting people, I can indeed say that there is in fact a couch (or to be exact a multitude of those wonderful inventions) ergo the Great Couch exists

In the same way, I can say that, especially when we are little or in other circumstances others, more clever and educated than I am have explained in depth, there are more powerful people than we are, people we look up to to protect us. Therefore, the concept of a being protecting us exists because there are indeed people we look up to to do this exaxt thing. Imagining a greater being and calling it a god based on that concept is doable (and, according to what I believe is exactly what has happened).

What I am trying to say here is that there is truth in what you are saying: People imagine things based on real things/people/animals/whathaveyou. Going from acccpting the nugget of truth however existing in i.e. some of the ancient Greek myths to saying that the whole body of Greek mythology is true is, frankly, illogical.

Take the whole Trojan war for instance. Yeap, we battled those guys, 'cause they had a city in a really inconvenient place for our commerce and refused to leave it to us when we asked politely. No demigods or gods where involved though, no extraordinary beautiful women, nothing of the sort.

What about mathematical concepts like "the greatest prime number"? That's certainly a meaningful concept in that one can easily say what it means to the greatest prime number, but one can also prove that the concept is self-contradictory and therefore not only does it not exist it can't exist.

I think I'm finally starting to understand where you're going with this Essorant.... you're saying that the concept of something exists because there is something real which we can tie it to... it may not be identical with the actual concept.... but something like it must exist for us to understand the concept of it. Of course, even ideas that are contradictory and don't make sense like a "square circle" can exist as concepts in a way since they are composed of elements that exist (we can understand "square" and "circle" independently)... although when combined together they might not make sense... so we all agree that "beings" exist and "power" or "ability" exists and the concept of "all" or "total" or "comprehensive" and so we can have a concept of an "all power being" because the elements are existing even if we disagree on whether they exist together in one form. That makes sense to me... then again I could be way off.

Yes, I suppose I do insist that some things are nonexistent, because that the common-sense viewpoint. I think that for your argument that nothing is really non-existent to be persuasive, you have to answer the question; How do you know this?

I know because we may refer to it.

So anything that may be referred to conceptually, exists? Nonsense. You're using verbal tricks to try to define God into existence.

Essorant wrote:

I don't see it that way. I see also the existence of the concept of the smurf, which has no existing referrent; i.e. smurfs are non-existent. Your view seems to be, in a sense, against concepts.

We already discussed its basis and referrent: that it represents living beings in an imaginative way through art (in this case "smurfs").

You're conflating the basis and referrent of the concept "smurf". The bases are people, maybe midgets, the color blue. The referrent is little blue people, who, as it so happens, don't exist. Another example; the unicorn. The bases of the concept of the unicorn are the horse (of course), horned herbivores, maybe the hippo. The referrent is a horse-like animal with a horn on its head, which, as it so happens, doesn't exist. The bases of these concepts exist; the referrents do not. The bases of a concept are not identical to its referrent.

Essorant wrote:In like wise, I don't know for sure exactly how god is as distinct from our concepts of god. All I know is that god exists, just as everything else in the universe does.

I still think this argument is merely verbal gymnastics disguised as a proof of the existence of God.

calvinist wrote:I think I'm finally starting to understand where you're going with this Essorant.... you're saying that the concept of something exists because there is something real which we can tie it to... it may not be identical with the actual concept.... but something like it must exist for us to understand the concept of it. Of course, even ideas that are contradictory and don't make sense like a "square circle" can exist as concepts in a way since they are composed of elements that exist (we can understand "square" and "circle" independently)... although when combined together they might not make sense... so we all agree that "beings" exist and "power" or "ability" exists and the concept of "all" or "total" or "comprehensive" and so we can have a concept of an "all power being" because the elements are existing even if we disagree on whether they exist together in one form. That makes sense to me... then again I could be way off.

Even I've never argued that concepts don't exist, as concepts. What I argue with, and Essorant seems to be saying, is that the referrent of a concept exists, simply because the concept does. The concept of God exists, certainly. This in no way proves (in my mind, at least) that God exists.

calvinist wrote:I think I'm finally starting to understand where you're going with this Essorant.... you're saying that the concept of something exists because there is something real which we can tie it to... it may not be identical with the actual concept.... but something like it must exist for us to understand the concept of it. Of course, even ideas that are contradictory and don't make sense like a "square circle" can exist as concepts in a way since they are composed of elements that exist (we can understand "square" and "circle" independently)... although when combined together they might not make sense... so we all agree that "beings" exist and "power" or "ability" exists and the concept of "all" or "total" or "comprehensive" and so we can have a concept of an "all power being" because the elements are existing even if we disagree on whether they exist together in one form. That makes sense to me... then again I could be way off.

Even I've never argued that concepts don't exist, as concepts. What I argue with, and Essorant seems to be saying, is that the referrent of a concept exists, simply because the concept does. The concept of God exists, certainly. This in no way proves (in my mind, at least) that God exists.

yes, but i think his point is that concepts can only exist if the elements of them actually do exist as real entities.... that alone wouldn't mean that God exists because there is a concept of him, but that the elements of the concept of God (personality, power, all-encompassing) must exist as real entities for us to refer to when we envision the concept... so in that way anything you think of has to be made up of pieces of reality... even if the idea when taken together is silly or nonsense or doesn't exist. So in a sense we can only think about things that really do exist... but then we can mix them together in ways in which they don't exist in reality.

calvinist wrote:yes, but i think his point is that concepts can only exist if the elements of them actually do exist as real entities.... that alone wouldn't mean that God exists because there is a concept of him, but that the elements of the concept of God (personality, power, all-encompassing) must exist as real entities for us to refer to when we envision the concept... so in that way anything you think of has to be made up of pieces of reality... even if the idea when taken together is silly or nonsense or doesn't exist. So in a sense we can only think about things that really do exist... but then we can mix them together in ways in which they don't exist in reality.

I don't think that's what his point is. If that is what his point is, at least, he is not expressing himself in a way that I find easy to comprehend (and in fact, I'm wondering whether English is his native language). What I get out of his posts is that he believes that since we can conceive of God, God necessarily exists, but somehow as an actually existing entity out there somewhere in the universe. For instance, when I say that smurfs exist as a concept, but not in actuality, he disagrees. He seems to me to think that since the bases of a concept must exist, the entity referred to by the concept exists. So, since midgets and the color blue exist as the bases of the concept "smurf" (which I don't disagree with), smurfs exist. But just because midgets exist, and the color blue exists, that doesn't mean they co-exist in the same actual entity. At least, I've never seen a blue midget before. When I try to nail him down on exactly how this can be, he starts speaking in a very poetical but I think nonsensical way about art. I don't even know what art has to do with any of this.

That is exactly what I am talking about. I was trying to point out to Lex that what he is talking about is actually <i>the difference</i> between two existant things: the artistic representation (smurf) and what is represented in an imaginative way (a living being, especially the human). The difference is not that one or the other does not exist, but that it is represented much differently in art, as it is in the example of a smurf. But even at that the difference is exaggerated somewhat. For example, smurfs are upright like humans, with very humanly attributes and personalities, etc. These things I think are more substantial similarities than the differences of skin color, the hats, etc. I don't think I ever talked so scientifically about smurfs before <pre> </pre>

Essorant wrote:That is exactly what I am talking about. I was trying to point out to Lex that what he is talking about is actually <i>the difference</i> between two existant things: the artistic representation (smurf) and what is represented in an imaginative way (a living being, especially the human).

*sigh*

I still fail to see what art has to do with any of this. It certainly has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. So I'll try this again, from scratch:

Do smurfs exist in the "real world"? That is, do little tiny blue people exist in the world, other than the concepts of them in our heads? Yes? Or no?

Does God exist in the "real world" outside of the concept of him in our heads? Yes? Or no?

I'm not interested in artistic representations of God or smurfs. I'm not interested in the bases of the concept of God or smurfs that are represented in an artistic way. In your opinion, do smurfs and God exist in the big wide world outside of our heads?

calvinist wrote:yes, but i think his point is that concepts can only exist if the elements of them actually do exist as real entities.... that alone wouldn't mean that God exists because there is a concept of him, but that the elements of the concept of God (personality, power, all-encompassing) must exist as real entities for us to refer to when we envision the concept... so in that way anything you think of has to be made up of pieces of reality... even if the idea when taken together is silly or nonsense or doesn't exist. So in a sense we can only think about things that really do exist... but then we can mix them together in ways in which they don't exist in reality.

I don't think that's what his point is. If that is what his point is, at least, he is not expressing himself in a way that I find easy to comprehend (and in fact, I'm wondering whether English is his native language). What I get out of his posts is that he believes that since we can conceive of God, God necessarily exists, but somehow as an actually existing entity out there somewhere in the universe. For instance, when I say that smurfs exist as a concept, but not in actuality, he disagrees. He seems to me to think that since the bases of a concept must exist, the entity referred to by the concept exists. So, since midgets and the color blue exist as the bases of the concept "smurf" (which I don't disagree with), smurfs exist. But just because midgets exist, and the color blue exists, that doesn't mean they co-exist in the same actual entity. At least, I've never seen a blue midget before. When I try to nail him down on exactly how this can be, he starts speaking in a very poetical but I think nonsensical way about art. I don't even know what art has to do with any of this.

yeah, i agree about the flowery wording... especially when talking about matters that are so esoteric and complex to begin with, you need to be straightforward with your explanations... i think most of the history of philosophy is people arguing with each other without ever really understanding the other person's position, and most of the time it's because the other person didn't explain himself well.

calvinist wrote:yeah, i agree about the flowery wording... especially when talking about matters that are so esoteric and complex to begin with, you need to be straightforward with your explanations...

Yes, exactly. That's why I am trying to be careful to distinguish between:

1) The concept ; the thing in our heads;

2) The bases ; the things, whether real or only conceptual, on which the concept is based; and

3) The entity ; the thing that exists (or not) out there somewhere in the real world.

When Essorant says that God must exist because we can conceptualize him, I think he is conflating the bases with the entity. That seems to me to be a rather slippery way of defining God into existence (although I'm not saying Essorant is being intentionally slippery). At any rate, If God exists, I think he deserves better than this. And even if he doesn't exist, the idea that he might exist deserves better than this.

calvinist wrote:i think most of the history of philosophy is people arguing with each other without ever really understanding the other person's position, and most of the time it's because the other person didn't explain himself well.

And some philosophy nowadays is probably intentionally obscure, so that fifth-raters will make the author famous by making a cottage industry of trying to explain what he meant!

Lex wrote:And some philosophy nowadays is probably intentionally obscure, so that fifth-raters will make the author famous by making a cottage industry of trying to explain what he meant!

Yes, of course. Well, people can't argue against your position when they can't understand it, and at the same time it makes you sound really smart... even if it's just a bunch of meaningless rambling! But, Essorant, if you are arguing that because we have a concept of God (or anything) then he therefore exists... well, that's just completely indefensible. If, on the other hand, you're arguing something like I've suggested then I don't think anyone would disagree, but it really doesn't do anything to advance any position.

calvinist wrote:But, Essorant, if you are arguing that because we have a concept of God (or anything) then he therefore exists... well, that's just completely indefensible. If, on the other hand, you're arguing something like I've suggested then I don't think anyone would disagree, but it really doesn't do anything to advance any position.

Exactly. At least, it doesn't advance any position that takes God seriously.

"The Buddha religion is a beautiful religion; the Hindu religion is a beautiful religion. But, brother, they're just as lifeless as life can be.Where does life lay? Life lays in blood. Blood is the life. And that's the only Man that could bleed the right kind of a Blood, because He was God's Own Blood. And He bled the Blood that redeemed you and I. And so our salvation lays in Christ Jesus, what He did for us at Calvary.

Listen, some of the young folks, you may be young, ... Wait just a little while till you're laying yonder in the hospital, the doctor says you got two days to live, or two hours. Wait just a little bit till that heart begins to skip that beat, and you feel it coming up your sleeve. Oh, brother, you'll be seeking with everything then. What's all life going to amount to then? It's finished. Wait till the hairs begin to turn gray in your head, and you realize that you're facing an endless eternity yonder; and this soul that now lives with inside of you, is breaking out like a--like a tooth being extracted, pulling from you like that to go into somewhere that you know not where you're going, you better think it over now and settle it now. 'Cause you might be snapped out, like that, without even a chance to repent. So get right now.There is not an excuse to the American people. " -William M. Branham

Salvete,There is only one god and one religion but because of differences in ways to approch the god, we think that there are many gods and many religion.One should belive in god and strive to know him by keeping faith in religion in which he is born or in which he can put staunch faith. Please read about advait vedant philosophy.www.vedantnagar.comPax Vobiscum.